question for gunowners

[WillowTree]

But if you bought one and it was then declared illegal you'd have to hand it over. Save your money, wait until you see that nothing changes, then go out and buy one.

No what you do is buy it now and when the gestapo comes for it say it is stolen. they can't take what they cannot find.

 

[Gunny]

A .50 cal sniper rifle. So are you going to take out Obama?

The cost! That's funny given the likely outcome for someone attempting to kill the president. By all means, assassination's must be done on a budget...

Knock this kind of talk off. He hasn't said a thing about the weapon other than wanting to own it.

While I can't imagine you being able to manage such a chore, IF the topic of assassination is discussed, it will be discussed in a tasteful, respectful manner and the the bullshit personal accusations will be left at the door.

 

[editec]

I bet dollars to donoughts that no changes in types of legal guns occurs in the next four years.

Want to know how they're REALLY cut down on gun ownership?

By changing what kinds of people can legally own guns.

They've already made so many people felons that they've eliminated millions of people from the ranks of legal guns owners.

They'll just keep the pressure up to make more and more formerly minor crimes felonies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I bet dollars to donoughts that no changes in types of legal guns occurs in the next four years.

Want to know how they're REALLY cut down on gun ownership?

By changing what kinds of people can legally own guns.

They've already made so many people felons that they've eliminated millions of people from the ranks of legal guns owners.

They'll just keep the pressure up to make more and more formerly minor crimes felonies.

Not just felons. Misdomeanor charges of family problems can be disqualifiers for owning weapons. Including if 2 people just happen to share an apartment and get in to a fight over the TV. And I don't mean a guy and a woman, I mean just 2 room mates that share an apartment for cost reasons.

 

[Paulie]

Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned but I'll just take a good-ole combat shotgun. Always a show-stopper.

Mooseberg makes several sweet ones.

LOL, Mooseberg?

That's MOSSberg.

 

[strollingbones]

Is it? I'm a gun owner and have them for hunting, target practice, and protection. The "most powerful gun" has but one purpose and why I would never consider having one...

not true....many collectors get guns not available to the public....and they simply like power guns....like to shoot them etc. and yea the cost of ammo now has stopped a whole lot of practice.

a .50 caliber is like a high powered machine gun...that is what they had at waco and opened fire on the atf with.

 

[del]

LOL, Mooseberg?

That's MOSSberg.

i prefer my Salvage Alms 12 ga.

congrats on the win last night, BTW

 

[Paulie]

i prefer my Salvage Alms 12 ga.

congrats on the win last night, BTW

Stayed up til the end, and then because my heart was pounding so much it took a while to get to sleep. Daughter had a friend sleep over, and they were up at fucking 7am this morning, so I have about 4 hours sleep, and I'll be doing it all over again tonight. At least there won't be a delay, though.

And every single bit of it is more than worth it!

 

[editec]

Not just felons. Misdomeanor charges of family problems can be disqualifiers for owning weapons. Including if 2 people just happen to share an apartment and get in to a fight over the TV. And I don't mean a guy and a woman, I mean just 2 room mates that share an apartment for cost reasons.

YUP!

You know who's next don't you?

You and me, RGS, you and me.

Me for having chronic depression, and you for whatever psych DX you're labled with.

A nod is, I hope, as good as a wink from this blind horse to another, eh?

 

[Paulie]

YUP!

You know who's next don't you?

You and me, RGS, you and me.

Me for having chronic depression, and you for whatever psych DX you're labled with.

A nod is, I hope, as good as a wink from this blind horse to another, eh?

That's why you don't go to a psych for your depression. You just deal with it. They serve no purpose, other than to hook you on a pharmaceutical that's virtually doing the same thing for you as if you took an illicit street drug.

Once you're in the system, you're fucked. It will be a scarlet A for the rest of your life.

 

[editec]

Bury the sucker in the backyard so they can't confiscate it from you when the shit hits the fan........

YouTube - NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

There might have been a time when I'd have thought you a nutter for suggesting such a thing.

Those days are past.

 

[PeterS]

Knock this kind of talk off. He hasn't said a thing about the weapon other than wanting to own it.

While I can't imagine you being able to manage such a chore, IF the topic of assassination is discussed, it will be discussed in a tasteful, respectful manner and the the bullshit personal accusations will be left at the door.

There is a tasteful way of discussing assassination? Ask yourself this: if you were with the ATF of Secret Service and read a request for the most powerful gun one can legally own what would be the first thought that would come to your mind?

I think you should worry less about my response and more about the request that what prompted it...

 

[PeterS]

not true....many collectors get guns not available to the public....and they simply like power guns....like to shoot them etc. and yea the cost of ammo now has stopped a whole lot of practice.

a .50 caliber is like a high powered machine gun...that is what they had at waco and opened fire on the atf with.

If he were a collector he would already know of the gun so wouldn't have made the request nor do I think he is a member of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association. Also, the gun I am referring to is perfectly legal to own. No machine gun, 50 cal or not, is legal.

 

[Gunny]

There is a tasteful way of discussing assassination? Ask yourself this: if you were with the ATF of Secret Service and read a request for the most powerful gun one can legally own what would be the first thought that would come to your mind?

I think you should worry less about my response and more about the request that what prompted it...

That someone was being a smartass and making a point of drawing attention to the fact that both Obama and Biden are gun control advocates. It's really a simple conclusion to come to if you ain't knee deep up Obama's ass.

I think you are making a baseless implication just to throw dirt at a political adversary and you crossed the line where I'm willing to allow you to go.

Obviously you don't know a damned thing about assassination.

What is the most powerful gun I can get? or better, what is the one you think is the most likely gun to be banned if Obama wins? i want to know so I can purchase one before January.

Neither weapon described is necessarily suitable to carry out an assassination.

 

[PeterS]

In a situation of anarchy you will not just be facing home invaders, that shotgun is useless at any real range.

What is a situation of anarchy?

 

[PeterS]

That someone was being a smartass and making a point of drawing attention to the fact that both Obama and Biden are gun control advocates. It's really a simple conclusion to come to if you ain't knee deep up Obama's ass.

I think you are making a baseless implication just to throw dirt at a political adversary and you crossed the line where I'm willing to allow you to go.

Obviously you don't know a damned thing about assassination.



Neither weapon described is necessarily suitable to carry out an assassination.

Your right, I don't know a damn thing about assassination but I do know about guns and know the greatest threat to gun ownership isn't Obama but the idiots who are flippant in their ownership. Guns demand respect therefore their ownership isn't something that we should take lightly. Put guns with unlimited power in the hands of an idiot and it is not Obama but society that you need to worry about. If you want to protect your right to bear arms worry less about me, and those like me, and more about the numskull who started this thread...

 

[Gunny]

Your right, I don't know a damn thing about assassination but I do know about guns and know the greatest threat to gun ownership isn't Obama but the idiots who are flippant in their ownership. Guns demand respect therefore their ownership isn't something that we should take lightly. Put guns with unlimited power in the hands of an idiot and it is not Obama but society that you need to worry about. If you want to protect your right to bear arms worry less about me, and those like me, and more about the numskull who started this thread...

Right. A new variation on "don't watch what I'm doing while I'm screwing you, it won't hurt a bit." You're trying to deflect to only one portion of the argument in order to justify your original statement and it ain't selling.

Sure, gun owners need to be responsible. The type of firearm they own is irrelevant. The responsible part negates it.

However, sitting and pretending people like Biden and Obama don't want to further restrict firearms ownership is just you trying to blow smoke up people's asses.

I'm less worried about a gun owner making a flippant remark than I am someone like you who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Fact is, I SAW the run made on the gun stores when Clinton was elected and it's going to happen again. If you don't fear the government disarming the citizenry then that would make you a sheep -- youo expect the government to protect you. All I ever see them doing is investigating crimes after the fact. Hint: means you're already dead.

So perhaps you should spend more time worrying about your backwards-assed logic than what someone else has to say? Barring that, none of this has anything to do with my original response to your baseless accusation. One plus one does not equal three. Only your conclusion based on the other member's statement does.

 

[editec]

What is a situation of anarchy?

A general breakdown of civil authority.

You know, pretty much like what we have in most of the slums of America already?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But if you bought one and it was then declared illegal you'd have to hand it over. Save your money, wait until you see that nothing changes, then go out and buy one.

Ahem, you've just had an Emperor-President for 8 years. Didn't you notice?

Don't panic, no-one is going to take your weapons. There won't be any fightin' in the streets - well no more than usual, depending on where you are of course.

Okay, start the slagging, I'll check back later.

ROFLMNAO... Australians... You people are hysterical.

Now here's a really enlightened culture... They had some an insane douche-bag mercilessly attack and take the lives of innocent people; THIS CRIMINALLY INSANE IMBECILE DID SO OUTSIDE OF ANY POTENTIAL VALID MORAL JUSTIFICATION; he just started killing people he didn't even know for whatever invalid, unsound reason he had flickering through his fatally flawed brain housing...

So here Australia comes to realize that they have some HOMICIDAL MANIACS RUNNING AROUND SLAUGHTERING INNOCENT PEOPLE and what was the plan they came up with? How did Australia decide to deal with the very real, very serious problem of human predators usurping the rights of INNOCENT PEOPLE?

THEY DISARMED THE INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Americans reject such idiocy... and we do so on the basis that we recognize that a government which seeks to disarm the innocent who are being stalked; whose lives are being threatened through those harboring invalid moral justifications, are serving the function of unbridled evil; such a government is aiding and abetting those predators; thus such a government is an invalid government and will through that very despotic action demonstrate their tyrannical tendencies and thus establish themselves as the enemy of the American; thus such a government will have given just cause for Americans to destroy it and to set in its place a government which serve justice.

You see the notion of disarming the law abiding citizen is a notion which exist outside of valid moral principle; as such any law which rests upon that notion can never serve justice. In this case the Government says: 'You must disarm, because you do not have a right to use a fire arm in defense of your life; we the Government will protect you; we the Government will take from you, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE.'

The problem is that the RIGHT rests in the RESPONSIBILITY... as it is through the maintenance of that responsibility that the individual is able to exercise the RIGHT; meaning that the failure to adequately prevent someone from killing or seriously injuring you or others, PREVENTS THE INDIVIDUAL FROM BEING ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT! Of course if it were possible for the government to defend the life of every individual, well that might be a plausible way to go... as the imperative is that the life be defended; that it is defended by the collective effort, versus the individual effort does not matter; the problem becomes clear once one recognizes that THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEFEND THE LIFE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL; AS SUCH IS A LITERAL, FUNCTIONAL IMPOSSIBILITY where individual liberty is recognized as the purest essence of the fulfilled human life; that absent the freedom to pursue the fulfillment of one’s life, fulfillment is itself impossible… The government can at BEST reasonably be trusted to defend the COLLECTIVE... which in the US is the function of the Constitutional mandate to '…provide for the common defense...'

But the government can NOT defend each individual life... thus the would-be 'social contract' that implies that the Government can is invalid by default; meaning it's a lie... The very idea that individual liberty can be sustained through the transfer of individual responsibility to the collective is, quite literally, insane.

So Americans will not be handing over our guns… The law enforcement officers which tried to do so in the wake of Katrina were acting outside of valid moral justification and as such were not serving justice. Any citizen which was being accosted by such was and will always be within their rights to defend themselves from such a usurpation of their individual rights, up to and including the execution of deadly force.

Now will the citizen whose intellect has been infected by left-think; the independent, moderate, centrists progressive… those that find that ‘both ideologies have some good points, but both are too extreme…’ will those people give up their guns? It’s a certainty that they will… but not a single American will allow so much as a single bullet to be taken from them by a despotic government operating outside of valid moral justification; whose very actions in attempting to do so is endangering an innocent life; a life the bearer of which is duty bound to defend.

 

[del]

Your right, I don't know a damn thing about assassination but I do know about guns and know the greatest threat to gun ownership isn't Obama but the idiots who are flippant in their ownership. Guns demand respect therefore their ownership isn't something that we should take lightly. Put guns with unlimited power in the hands of an idiot and it is not Obama but society that you need to worry about. If you want to protect your right to bear arms worry less about me, and those like me, and more about the numskull who started this thread...

why is he a numbskull? he asked a valid question to which you chose to respond in very questionable taste (i.e. like a moron). there's nothing funny there, and you are the numbskull for going there. no one else, just you.